Talk:Naliboki massacre

2962:, I am not sure how one should definitively determine those at risk of sanctions in the first place. Is it based on our own interpretation of how an editor was presented in the article? Or is it just the fact of being included? Either way, that's a rather dangerous route to take that could disqualify several editors from being able to contribute based on merit. Unless I am really missing something crucial here or am otherwise inadvertently ignorant regarding certain arbcom rules, I don't see the validity of that approach, at least for now and especially considering that the arbcom case might take a long time to resolve. Perhaps this is something that should be directed to arbcom directly and, if so, I'd be happy to do it as who is not involved. 1372: 1351: 290: 269: 1097: 2880:

historians after him. I read Boradyn's book he doesn't even use the word "Jewish," he only talks about " Bielski partisans." "False" suggests that we were dealing with a deliberate lie from the beginning. That's why I prefer "unsubstantiated" or a similar term. Witness statements speak of the participation of Jewish partisans, residents of Naliboki, of course, since this is not confirmed by documents, oral testimony based on unreliable memory should be dismissed as "unsubstantiated." This is another reason to use "unsubstantiated".

2876:

committed by Jewish partisan units. It is also a fact that the right-wing and Catholic media used the Naliboki crime as a kind of counterweight to the narrative of Polish responsibility for the Jedwabne pogrom. Jan Tomasz Gross published a book about Jedwabne in May 2000, the Canadian Polish Congress filed a request for an investigation in February 2001. There is no coincidence here. For these two reasons, I think the section should stay to describe this mechanism and instrumentalization of the memory of the Naliboki massacre.

1267: 658: 1246: 637: 1460: 1382: 1065: 480: 459: 771: 2861:

other editors in this discussion were directly criticized in it, as was this particular Knowledge article. I can't be the only one that thinks that this group of people -- the ones named in the article -- are not the best group of people to decide what to do with the content specifically discussed in the article. I'd rather leave the decision to "uninvolved" editors. I'm not sure what the community consensus is on that point.

750: 781: 668: 1113: 569: 1277: 548: 300: 238: 1162: 950: 1141: 207: 1081: 1172: 1022: 1011: 1000: 989: 395: 374: 890: 851: 2691:. Boradyn also spoke simply about Bielski partisans. However, Nasz Dziennik and similar outlets spoke directly about Jews and Jewish crime. Certainly, such allegations can still be found in the depths of the Internet. The IPN investigation was conducted in general to identify the perpetrators. (Contrary to what the text of the article now says) 2144:. If you continue your behavior and do not withdraw the changes you have made, I will be forced to ask for admin help. I would not want to do that, so once again I kindly ask you to withdraw these changes and engage in a constructive discussion without accusing other editors of low intentions and focus on creating an article based on 978: 2879:

However, I would not use the phrase "false." Because we are not dealing here with a deliberately created "hoax" in 2000/2001. Information about the participation of Jewish partisans in the massacre appeared earlier, the earliest recorded date being 1993 and Nowicki's memoirs. It was repeated by other

2860:

Separately, I think we should discuss this at a time when multiple participants aren't facing the possibility of sanctions in this topic area. Whether to include this content at all, and how to describe it, I think might very well need to go to an RFC. I was quoted in the G&K article, and several

1619:

According to the discussion and the current version of the article (although part of it is hidden in a footnote), the information that the massacre was carried out by Bielski partisans appeared in 1993 and was repeated by historians (including Boradyn). It was not until the IPN investigation that the

3016:

I don't read Polish. But based on the above descriptions of the sourcing, "unsubstantiated" looks to me to be a good word to use. As I understand it, the participation of one particular Jewish partisan unit is found by the investigation to be "false", while for another, they don't have evidence, but

3000:

Thanks for clarifying! I haven't had a chance to familiarize myself with the AE case and was worried for a second that the entire subject would be suddenly deprived of many experienced editors (yourself included) due to an arbcom case that has yet to make any final determinations. And while I find a

2934:

Well, exactly except that the investigation ruled out beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the Bielski partisans, but Semczyszyn acknowledges the posibility of participation of the Zorin unit, although she considers it unlikely. (Zorin unit was in the Naliboki forest at the time and was part

2668:

I definitely agree that we should avoid covering this in a way that is antisemitic. This is leading me to partly reconsider my earlier comment about the title. I definitely like the fact that we say right up front that the allegations are unsubstantiated. Not sure exactly how we should describe the

2537:

I see "involvement" is used instead of "perpetrators" in one proposed version, which I think is also reasonable, and which does not suggest that all of the perpetrators were Jewish. (Does any source suggest that??) The other thing is, I suggest the section be kept short as far as that is possible.

2162:

Given your hostile response to my editing w/o elaborating on any issue and edit-warring to maintain a non-NPOV section header, the thrust of my accusation is clear. That said this is not an user-conduct board; so, I won't waste bytes. And you can always ask for admin help. So many venues — AN, ANI,

1569:

Okay, so Marcelus will explain how the opinions of Magdalena Semczyszyn — who has a PhD on a relevant topic but, till date, is yet to hold any proffesorship — is credible enough to contradict a tenured professor of history at the University of Ottawa who has published multiple books from acclaimed

2463:

also stopped devoting so much space to the topics that were supposed to balance out Jedwabne. References to Koniuchy and Naliboki still appeared in articles after 2002, however articles solely devoted to those massacres were rare. Nevertheless, after the intense campaign to publicise these crimes

1500:

Another accusation of Jews killing Poles surfaces in the Knowledge article ‘Naliboki massacre,’ which chronicles the killing of 129 Poles by Soviet partisans in May 1943 in Naliboki, a small town in western Belarus. The article insinuates that Jews, specifically the Soviet–Jewish Bielski partisan

2875:

I mentioned this all earlier, but I will try to put it in one comment. It seems to me that the section should remain. The IPN investigation into the perpetrators of the crime is a fact, the fact is that the reason for the investigation was to verify the veracity of the claims that the crime was

1670:

As the IPN investigation found, there are no archival testimonies of Jewish troops' participation in the massacre, there are only oral testimonies of witnesses to the massacre. I don't know where your surprise comes from, since everything is described in the article. Did you not read it before

2779:

I think just claims or allegations would be enough. Either of those words should be sufficient. Unless I am misunderstnding the concept of allegation (from define:allegation on google: "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.").

1655:

So, you accept that the allegations of Jewish involvement has no evidence. That's nice to know. Absence of evidence is often, evidence of absence but diggressions apart, you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible.

2821:"Jewish refugees did not form their own resistance movement.In July 1943 many joined the Lenin detachment of the Stalin Brigade, which contained a “Jewish” unit led by David Mudrik." Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.Wendy Lower 1623:

Magdalena Semczyszyn is a specialist when it comes to Jewish partisans in Lithuania and Belarus. The article was published in the leading journal when it comes to Holocaust studies, "Zagłada Żydów", published by the Holocaust Research Center, of which Jan Grabowski was one of the

2981:

not Arbcom :-) And I think the "involved" thing has more to do with editors named in G&K than editors named in the Arbcom case request (not everyone named is "involved", but some are, in my view). I don't think the Arbcom case request party list is actually relevant here.

1104: 869: 2198:

You need to revert your changes and engage in an ongoing discussion, because all things you introduced with your change where part of such discussion. Take a deep breath and reconsider your course of actions. Please also change your tone and attitude towards me.

1901:. In fact, this is not the subject of Semczyszyn's essay, it's not the point she's trying to make but rather a passing reference - a few lines in an article that is devoted to a different albeit releted subject. I would leave her essay as a reference to support 1829:

insist on keeping things on footnote (mention of Nowicki and Boradyn), we are still discussing it, you ignored that discussion. We also discussing proper chronological order of letter and IPN investigation etc. Really I insist on reading above discussion.

2039:

All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV. Honestly, that you screamed the hoarsest about the footnote, you shall be thankful to me for restoring it to the body! You can enumerate your objections to the

1620:

involvement of the Bielski partisans was actually ruled out, but the involvement of the Zorin partisans (who were in the Naliboki forest at the time and were part of the Stalin brigade) is possible, though unlikely. This is the current state of knowledge.

1929:

I'm OK with the removal of the content about the movie "Defiance", added by me; it's quite likely that the Naliboki massacre had already become widely known by the public as a result of the polemics surrounding Gross's book, Neighbours, as Kwiatkowska

2856:

allegations", and I think it's important to specify that the allegations were false. Or maybe "disproven" or something. I wouldn't oppose "unsubstantiated" if the sources don't quite support "false" or "disproven" (I'm not sure if they do or they

2894:

I don't agree that "false" means "intentionally false"; something can be unintentionally false. "False" is the opposite of "true", "false" is not a synonym for "lie". Whereas, "unsubstantiated" suggests that it hasn't been substantiated

1072: 861: 3074:); where there was information that Naliboki was a crime conducted by Jewish partisans. I don't know what was the main subject of the article, because it isn't available online. But Jacek Hugo-Bader definitely isn't right-wing. 2957:

Since I've only been around for less than three years and have not been mentioned in the Grabowski and Klein article, I assume I can speak as an uninvolved editor. According to the description of the arbcom case request, namely

1088: 865: 1611:

Why would I do that? I suggest you to read the article. Grabowski is right that there were some passages left in the article that insinuated the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre. But they were removed in this

3248: 2606:

Wait, WHAT? It is the Polish Right who went about describing the event as an instance of Jewish savagery etc; we are simply documenting such ahistorical claims and discussing them. That does not make us antisemitic.

153: 2591:

I could be wrong, not sure. I was looking for antisemitic content in WP after reading article by G&K, and that section did appear to me as something to be removed if we want to satisfy the concerns by G&K.

2532:

I see people are interested in reactions to the new section. My biggest reaction is that if we are going to cover this, a title along the lines of "Unsubstantiated allegations of Jewish perpetrators" is the way to

3243: 1570:

university presses and has been conferred with the Yad Vashem International Book Prize. That said, I am asking for an quotation from Marcelus' work (p. 166 in part.) that supports the line in our article:

190: 2233:

My mine objection to your edits is that by making them you ignored discussion that started before your arrival to this article. And you act like changes that you introduced to the article are the new

1120: 873: 2899:; "false" suggests that it will never be substantiated, because it's not true, and I think (but I'm not sure) that "not true" is what we want to convey, per the sources (if we mention this at all). 732: 441: 356: 2684: 2470:

discourse. In your edit, you removed Nasz Dziennik reference, presenting the phenomenon as general. Is this deliberate manipulation on your part or did you simply fail to understand the source?

3163: 2714:

Just chiming in to say that since the Polish right-wing media and organizations took the Bielski news and ran with it, it seems very appropriate and historically accurate to talk about the

406:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 698: 694: 407: 3228: 2061:

First of all, revert your edits that you made to the article, your interference is a blatant attempt to forcibly make changes that are the subject of an ongoing discussion in which

2058:

Can you elaborate what POV I am exactly pushing? You keep accusing me of some nefarious intentions. You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote.

1501:

formation, took part in this massacre. Knowledge’s insinuation that Jews played a key role in perpetuating this massacre echoes distortions popular among right-wing fringe groups.

2370:

Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions

3238: 3183: 3051:

with a scoop (?) on how the IPN investigation, whose results were yet to be disclosed, came to the conclusion that the Jewish partisans were to blame. The article was cited by

619: 609: 2581:

is a good question, but however described, it should not be framed as a dispute about "Jews". I would suggest to remove whole section about the alleged "Jewish perpetrators".

2191:) and invited you to present your changes and a talk page and engage in a constructive discussion. You ignored me and ongoing discussion, acting like your changes are the new 3223: 3101:

Much like Grabowski, discusses the blaming of a Jew partisan unit for the massacre among other things in context of antisemitism in Polish nat. discourse, growth of RW, etc.

1609:

I am requesting Marcelus to present equally credible and acclaimed historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre

1585:

Być może chodzi o ludzi z obozu Zorina, którzy wchodzili w skład Brygady im. Sta-lina, ale i w tym przypadku nie wiemy, czy rzeczywiście brali oni udział w tych wydarzeniach.

1628:

Być może chodzi o ludzi z obozu Zorina, którzy wchodzili w skład Brygady im. Stalina, ale i w tym przypadku nie wiemy, czy rzeczywiście brali oni udział w tych wydarzeniach.

147: 690: 402: 379: 3233: 3178: 963: 940: 902: 3193: 722: 3158: 2464:

during the Jedwabne controversy, Koniuchy and Naliboki started functioning as word-codes, symbols of Jewish savagery and refusal to repent for `their' atrocities.

585: 431: 198: 2577:

version of this section on the page is atrocious. I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic. The involvement of

3293: 3198: 3188: 1632:

Perhaps it is about the people from the Zorin camp who were part of the Stalin Brigade, but again, we do not know whether they actually took part in the events.

1438: 1428: 949: 1535:

of Knowledge is accurate, it is his opinion that the Jews were not involved in the massacre, and claims to such effects are right-wing distortions. Invoking

3153: 680: 3298: 3288: 3283: 3218: 2187:

My response wasn't hostile, but immediate becuase you made interference into a content that was under discussion on a talk page. I reverted your change (

1333: 1323: 930: 79: 3258: 1918:

Kwiatkowska concluded that daily Nasz Dziennik used the stories of Koniuchy and Naliboki massacres as a balancing counterweight to the Jedwabne pogrom

576: 553: 44: 3148: 346: 3278: 3268: 2689:

In less than 2 hours 128 innocent people were killed. Most of them, as eyewitnesses later stated, at the hands of Bielski's and "Pobieda" henchmen

1404: 1228: 1218: 3253: 3173: 897: 856: 530: 520: 3143: 1793:

We are discussing the section in two discussions above, you can join if you want, but don't ignore them and don't try push your own changes.

906: 685: 642: 85: 3273: 3263: 3208: 1299: 833: 823: 2213:

Once again, I request that you enlist your specific objections to the current version so that I and others can respond to your concerns.

3168: 1899:

Magdalena Semczyszyn speculates that Jewish partisans from Zorin's unit might have been participants but there is no evidence in support

2404:

Sorry, I was busy elsewhere, now I react: I agree with Adoring nanny (here below) that TrangaBellam's recent edits are an improvement.

1558: 1395: 1356: 322: 3213: 3203: 2630: 1890:, for an assessment that could only be made by an expert in the field. Note that the quoted source is not a high quality source per 1194: 1705:

She sums it up pretty well actually. Bascially IPN investigation results as the current state of knowledge about the perpetrators

496: 194: 168: 2839: 1371: 1350: 1290: 1251: 99: 30: 135: 2413: 1943: 104: 20: 3070:

There was an article published by "Gazeta Wyborcza" on 15.11.1996: Jacek Hugo-Bader, A rewolucja to miała być przyjemność (

3001:

lot of merit in the GK article, overall I guess I am feeling a bit apprehensive about the kind impact it is having so far.

2535:(partly reconsidered this below; "Jewish" may not be the right word to use here, but what do the allegations actually say?) 2597: 2586: 2422:

I also agree that some of them are improvement, but they weren't discussed here. But some of them aren't improvement. Why

1956:

ok, let's wait for a couple of days to hear the opinions of the other editors; can you now please revert changes made by @

313: 274: 74: 2099: 1185: 1146: 249: 3052: 3048: 1675:

you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible

289: 268: 2626: 487: 464: 65: 2815:"As part of the Stalin brigade, Marion Spiegel commanded a small Jewish unit, which included Fishkin and Slobodkin." 206: 185: 129: 2824:"A large number of Jewish youth were to be found in Stalin Brigade" Zionist movements during Shoah. Asher Cohen 1466: 794: 755: 217: 2763: 2593: 2582: 2737:

Since I was pinged a while above. For now I have just a brief comment: aren't "Unsubstantiated allegations" a

237: 125: 1543:

historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre.

3022: 2674: 2543: 2332: 2293: 2116: 1978:: Thank you! I agree with (1). I was inclined to do (2); thanks for the support. I will take a look at (3). 1096: 901:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 798:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 109: 3124: 3106: 3060: 2925: 2622: 2612: 2561: 2489: 2448: 2313: 2260: 2218: 2175: 2084: 2049: 1997: 1983: 1866: 1812: 1783: 1746: 1724: 1696: 1661: 1595: 1554: 1536: 2960:

Inclusion in this list, or as a party if a case opens, does not mean that misconduct has or will be found

2835: 2810: 2133:

You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote, so I can respond to you.

1403:(USSR) on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 175: 2655: 2023: 1926:. I checked the thesis at pp. 155-156 and to me that claim looks well supported and the source reliable. 1923: 255: 2170:

objections to the current version agreed upon by me and Gitz, so that we can respond to your concerns.

2230:

Please read the discussion above, you can find all my objections to the content voiced rather clearly.

2827: 2141: 1546: 2831: 1807:

Specific objections, please. Almost 90% of my edits are copy-edits — shifting around sentences etc.

2373: 2365: 2234: 2192: 2137: 2062: 2011: 1775: 1387: 581: 161: 55: 1298: